RE: Talk about Unintended Consequences

RE: Talk about Unintended Consequences (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

janiebelle -> RE: Talk about Unintended Consequences (5/17/2009 2:21:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomImus quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Yea, no surprise there. The assult-style rifle I special-ordered in November was supposed to be delivered within 4 to 5 months, and when i called last week to see what the deal was, they told me it could be another 8 to 10 months. Seems the factory is working triple shifts, but can't keep up with the demand. There is also no recession for the ammunition manufacturers. Between law enforcement, Iraq and Afghanistan and the new dude on Pennsylvania Avenue 9mm ammo is at a premium if you can find it. No joke. Gun show this morning- $460/1000 rds. PMC 55 gr. .223 Didn't know PMC has switched from brass to gold cases. [;)] j

janiebelle -> RE: Talk about Unintended Consequences (5/17/2009 2:24:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 The NRA fear mongering? What a big surprise....[8\|]I`m w/ PAhunk,the GOA is where normal folks go.The paranoid and frightened go to the NRA for comfort. NRA has never seen a penny from me. GOA and JPFO get their fair share though. Love that Schulman! j

janiebelle -> RE: Talk about Unintended Consequences (5/17/2009 2:27:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MarsBonfire It's a great sales gimmick: wait for a dem president, start the rumors flying about he's going to take your guns away, and watch the sales skyrocket. It's right up there with price gouging on gas just before the Iraq war started. Amazing how many gun nuts fall for this crap! Nah, us true gun nuts have not had to change our buying patterns at all. If you've waited until THIS administration to begin preps, you're a day late and a few dollars short. j

janiebelle -> RE: Talk about Unintended Consequences (5/17/2009 2:29:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: flcouple2009<do most of these people with AK47's and AR15's with a stack of clips and ammo tucked away in their closet really need em? Nope. OK, that said, we don't have to need them to have a right to own them. j

janiebelle -> RE: Talk about Unintended Consequences (5/17/2009 2:32:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda I don't think it's so much a fear of increasing crime as it is a fear of increasingly strong restrictions on gun ownership. Some of us who've been thinking for a while of purchasing certain types of weapons feel it would be prudent to get them now, in case we can't get them later. I mean, face it, some of the democrats in Congress have made no secret of the fact that they favor very restrictive gun control laws, and they are now the party in power. And they have a president who made a couple of vague, ambiguous campaign promises to reassure gun owners, but has a historical record of some pretty strong anti-gun statements and positions. In fact, he is specifically on record as supporting a ban on the sale of some of the weapons we are now buying. For some of us, it's just a matter of making sure all our bases are covered. Panda's right. It's a matter of voting from the pocketbook in hopes that we won't have to vote from the rooftop. j

Owner59 -> RE: Talk about Unintended Consequences (5/17/2009 6:48:07 PM)
vote from the rooftop. And this means what?

janiebelle -> RE: Talk about Unintended Consequences (5/17/2009 8:04:44 PM)
One of my LH's favorite sayings: "When all else fails, vote from the rooftops". Check your CMail. j

Kaledorus -> RE: Talk about Unintended Consequences (5/18/2009 2:47:19 PM)
Already we are seeing police in America act like the Federales do in Mexico. In Texas the cops are robbing people, making them "pay for justice", corruption already going all the way up the ladder at ALL levels of law enforcement. So the people are RIGHT to invoke their 2nd Amendment rights. You know with that hate crime law they may pass they will have gutted the 1st Amendment which is why the Founders put the 2nd in the Bill of Rights. Karen De Coster on the salutary boom in guns and ammo, which so many do not understand. GunBanObama.com quote: When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace. They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease. But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe, And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know." --Rudyard Kipling "The Gods of the Copybook Heading"

SilverMark -> RE: Talk about Unintended Consequences (5/18/2009 3:23:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark hmmmmm.....Has anyone seen any difference in the protection of citizens inside the U.S.?.....just curious....is there some unknown army of thugs hiding somewhere that I am unaware of?....some increase in violent crime?....just have to love paranoia.... I don't think it's so much a fear of increasing crime as it is a fear of increasingly strong restrictions on gun ownership. Some of us who've been thinking for a while of purchasing certain types of weapons feel it would be prudent to get them now, in case we can't get them later. I mean, face it, some of the democrats in Congress have made no secret of the fact that they favor very restrictive gun control laws, and they are now the party in power. And they have a president who made a couple of vague, ambiguous campaign promises to reassure gun owners, but has a historical record of some pretty strong anti-gun statements and positions. In fact, he is specifically on record as supporting a ban on the sale of some of the weapons we are now buying. For some of us, it's just a matter of making sure all our bases are covered. Panda, those who believe in restrictive gun laws in Congress have been around a very long time, nothing that new. Passing restrictive legislation especially when it comes to guns, outside a few state legislatures is a different story. I am not a gun fan, nor am I into restrictive gun laws until it gets too excessive weapons...excessive being my definition which probably wouldn't match others opinions who are much better educated on guns than I am. I just get a kick out of the thinking that somehow we are less safe then we were last year. If we are indeed less safe would more of us owning weapons fix the problem? I would all but bet that those who are so rapidly filling the "gun shows" and buying the weaponry for their "safety" also wouldn't support the spending of more money for police protection due to the fact that it could be construed as somehow restrictive nor would they support a tax increase or government incentive for better police coverage in the cities and states most hit by the current economic issues. Somehow there is a circular argument that no one ever wins....for my money, if you want to buy guns...buy guns!...but please be responsible(not you in particular panda...I have read enough of you to feel as though you are a responsible individual)...if there are kids around, buy locks for the triggers, buy gun safes...be a citizen...not a "gun nut".....

philosophy -> RE: Talk about Unintended Consequences (5/18/2009 3:35:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 vote from the rooftop. And this means what? ...i think it means 'fuck democracy, i've got a gun'

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Talk about Unintended Consequences (5/18/2009 3:52:17 PM)
Not sure how she meant it, but it often refers to armed insurrection. quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 vote from the rooftop. And this means what?

janiebelle -> RE: Talk about Unintended Consequences (5/19/2009 11:06:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 vote from the rooftop. And this means what? ...i think it means 'fuck democracy, i've got a gun' Au contraire. It means "fuck tyranny". To quote Jefferson: The tree of Liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. j

janiebelle -> RE: Talk about Unintended Consequences (5/19/2009 11:14:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Not sure how she meant it, but it often refers to armed insurrection. quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 vote from the rooftop. And this means what? I meant it in the classic sense: Μολὼν λάβε (Molon labe) j

philosophy -> RE: Talk about Unintended Consequences (5/19/2009 11:20:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: janiebelle It means "fuck tyranny". ....so, if your elected officials vote for gun control, you call it tyranny and that makes shooting people ok? i was right the first time.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Talk about Unintended Consequences (5/19/2009 11:42:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark Panda, those who believe in restrictive gun laws in Congress have been around a very long time, nothing that new. Passing restrictive legislation especially when it comes to guns, outside a few state legislatures is a different story. Sure, but now for the first time in my life, those legislators are in the majority party in both house and have a president with very strong anti-gun views. He is on record as supporting that idiotic assault-rfile ban, the sale and transfer of any type of semi-automatic weapon, and a complete ban on the sale, manufacture, or possession of any handgun (although he denies it now). The danger of exceedngly restrictive legislation being passed is arguably much greater than it has ever been before. quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark I am not a gun fan, nor am I into restrictive gun laws until it gets too excessive weapons...excessive being my definition which probably wouldn't match others opinions who are much better educated on guns than I am. I just get a kick out of the thinking that somehow we are less safe then we were last year. If we are indeed less safe would more of us owning weapons fix the problem? Well, if you could accept that society as a whole is becoming less safe, then from an individual point of view, it could be argued that being well-armed is a partial solution. But I don't accept that society is becoming less safe. I would not be surprised if it does become so over the next few years, but right now, the fact is that crime in this country - and particularly violent crime - seems to be getting better rather than worse. Contrary to the media-induced stereotype. I don't think increased risk of personal danger is a very strong argument for "gunning up" in 2009. I think the only rational reason - and it does seem to be supported by the facts at hand - is that there's an increased risk of restrictive legislation, and if we don't get them now, we won't be able to get them later.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Talk about Unintended Consequences (5/19/2009 12:09:54 PM)
But you just said you meant it in the Jefferson sense, which is armed insurrection against a tyranical government. quote: ORIGINAL: janiebelle quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Not sure how she meant it, but it often refers to armed insurrection. quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 vote from the rooftop. And this means what? I meant it in the classic sense: Μολὼν λάβε (Molon labe) j

janiebelle -> RE: Talk about Unintended Consequences (5/19/2009 1:01:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf But you just said you meant it in the Jefferson sense, which is armed insurrection against a tyranical government. quote: ORIGINAL: janiebelle quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Not sure how she meant it, but it often refers to armed insurrection. quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 vote from the rooftop. And this means what? I meant it in the classic sense: Μολὼν λάβε (Molon labe) j Jefferson had a classical education like most of the FFs. His view is a reflection of the classical Greek. j

janiebelle -> RE: Talk about Unintended Consequences (5/19/2009 1:06:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Well, if you could accept that society as a whole is becoming less safe, then from an individual point of view, it could be argued that being well-armed is a partial solution. But I don't accept that society is becoming less safe. I would not be surprised if it does become so over the next few years, but right now, the fact is that crime in this country - and particularly violent crime - seems to be getting better rather than worse. Contrary to the media-induced stereotype. I don't think increased risk of personal danger is a very strong argument for "gunning up" in 2009. I think the only rational reason - and it does seem to be supported by the facts at hand - is that there's an increased risk of restrictive legislation, and if we don't get them now, we won't be able to get them later. Excellent point. I agree, that while this government may indeed take a terrible terms in terms of 2A rights, we are unlikely to see an Australian style confiscation. So, yes, it's get 'em now. As Machiavelli said: "Before all else, be armed". j

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125